Talk:Gacaca court

gender based crimes

'gender based crimes' - does this mean rape? Or is it a euphenism?

sorry - forgot to sign Ophelia105 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find mention of it in any of the linked articles. I assume it refers to sexual violence, but that seems to be an odd thing to go through gacaca if it's not Genocide related. Maybe it should be removed? - BanyanTree 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merging Inyangamugayo would avoid forks. It will probably remain a stub forever else. If it grows too big, we can always split it up again. Any objections? Lapaz 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Merged. NYScholar 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag

needs {cleanup} {references} (before and after merger) NYScholar 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless scare quotes

There's a pair of pointless scare quotes around the word "mission". Suggest these be replaced with "stated mission", without the quotes. As it stands, the article could be read as mocking the stated formal objectives of the system. (This is without commenting on the section's appearance of having been yanked from a descriptive leaflet or some such.) 88.112.3.21 14:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a good reason Gacaca is capitalized? Through most of the article it is. "Court" is capitalized through much of the article. Some of the links capitalized Gacaca, but some don't. My instinct is that it shouldn't be capitalized, but I defer to any experts in gacaca and English usage. ConDissenter (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) It should be "Gacaca Court" (capitalized) because this is an official title and to distinguish these courts from the earlier institution of "gacaca" which were not formally courts but discussion forums with no punitive power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RwandanExpert (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this article Moravice (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Important missing information

How are the General Assemblies, Co-ordination Committees, and judges at each level selected? What is the nature of interaction between each of the three levels of Gacaca courts? IMHO (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

WP:NPOV Neutrality of the article in particular the "criticisms" section is doubtful in my mind, especially the length of the section, with arguments being restated to make it longer. Sources need to be checked re all the "no" points (no right to lawyer, innocence etc.) MarkiPoli (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gacaca court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120804031909/http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnIntroduction.htm to http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnIntroduction.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and loaded language in recent edits

@Fuzheado and RwandanExpert: I have restored the previous version of this article from prior to November 2020, as the later version seems to have serious WP:NPOV issues. In particular, it launched straight into criticisms from the start of the lead, with loaded words such as "claimed" etc. This is not to say that the previous version was particularly good - far from it, it needs serious updating with latest scholarship, in particular to highlight the very different views that are held with respect to Gacaca and the very real criticisms (some of which are already detailed). But that doesn't mean presenting the debate as one-sided, giving only the views of critics and in Wikipedia's voice, and it seems better to start from the status quo ante in building up a coherent picture, per WP:BRD. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

And reverted once again. @RwandanExpert: please discuss changes before reinstating them, per the WP:BRD cycle. This article was stable for many years, and when your changes are contested we go back to the stable version. I'm sure there are useful additions there, but they need to be neutrally worded and the article needs to start with a neutral definition of what Gacaca is. Saying the Rwandan government "claims" something is not neutral wording. Plenty of sources do say Gacaca was an ancient court system, while no doubt others say it wasn't, so we highlight that neutrally. @Fuzheado: I would also appreciate any views you have on this, as you were involved in discussions on this last year. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fuzheado:I am reverting the changes made by Amakuru as they involve (1) removing citations and reference to the work of published scholars and researchers on Gacaca; (2) reproduce the political position of the Rwandan government as fact; (3) make supurious claims that terms like "claim" are politically loaded or biased when it is critical that Wikipedia articles distinguish between what is said by a government and what has been researched as having taken place by scholars. The version Amakuru is promoting is akin to saying that the US war in Iraq was driven by the desire to destroy weapons of mass destruction. My version is akin to saying that this was the official claim by the US government and cannot be naively accepted as a true account of the war. Amakuru clearly works closely with the Rwandan government which works hard in policing online accounts of Rwandan history and thus their version should not be allowed to stand as "neutral."(talk)